4. Internal and External Enemies The Cold War The Cold War was a struggle between two great powers that wanted to mold the world according to their principles. Although a direct military confrontation was avoided, both camps were heavily engaged in a symbolic competition. Accomplishments in the fijields of production and consump- tion, social security, technology, scientifijic discoveries, sports and culture were celebrated as proof of ideological superiority. The visual arts were part of this rivalry, and they caused a lot of confusion. At fijirst, the artistic borders between East and West were as rigorously defijined as in the Third Reich. Socialist Realism, aimed at convincing the viewer of the blessings of Socialism and the eternal wisdom of the communist party, defijined the visual culture of the Soviet Union and its satellite states, beginning during Stalin’s times. In the 1950s, modernism became the dominant art form in the West, mostly defijined in strictly aesthetic, non-political terms. Paradoxically, this ‘pure’ art was confronted with the propagandistic realism of both the Eastern bloc and the Third Reich as a sign of political freedom in the Western world. On the other hand, precisely the lack of recognizable political and social engagement in modern art became a target for communist critics, who rejected this art as noth- ing but noncommittal decoration, a typical expression of a bourgeois-decadent society. Nonetheless, once again, reality was less straightforward than it might seem. During the years directly following the October Revolution, modern art was very successful 61 in communist Russia, while in the United States it did not make much headway until the 1930s. Moreover, the offfijicially sanctioned campaign against modern art after 1945 did not hinder the Soviet authorities from publicly honoring communist modern artists from Western Europe, such as Pablo Picasso, Fernand Léger and Renato Guttuso, at international conferences and festivals organized by the Soviet bloc. In the United States, on the other hand, modern art was hotly contested among those who honored it as a symbol of American freedom and those who fought it as an anti-American cultural conspiracy. How did the canonization of Socialist Realism in the Soviet Union and of modern art in the United States come about? Why was modern art celebrated and hotly contested by both superpowers? In spite of all the ideological difffer- ences: what were the parallels between the Cold War art worlds in the East and West? And why have the visual arts largely lost their appeal as a means of cultural diplomacy – or cultural propaganda – since the 1960s? * Following the Russian Revolution of 1917, the propagandistic value of visual culture was quickly recognized by the new political leaders. People’s Commissar of Enlightenment Anatoli Lunacharsky appealed to all artists throughout the country to support the new government through artistic means. With few exceptions, only members of the avant- garde responded to this open invitation.76 In the course of the 1910s, Russian Futurists, Suprematists and Constructiv- ists, partly under the influence of European movements like Futurism, Cubism and Expressionism, had broken away from academic norms. Initially, their formal experiments 62 did not have a clear political component, nor did they achieve a wide resonance. But all that would change in 1917, when Kasimir Malevich, Vladimir Tatlin and others started to present themselves as artistic forerunners and prophets of the political revolution.77 Thanks to Lunacharsky, Russian avant-garde artists were involved in designing public monu- ments and stage settings for revolutionary celebrations in public space. They were also invited to reform the principles of art education in accordance with their revolutionary views, and to establish new museums for modern and contemporary art – the fijirst of their kind worldwide.78 But soon enough, it became clear that communist politi- cians and avant-garde artists were not exactly on the same page. While the politicians focused on seizing and securing power, and sketching out the exclusive path to the shining socialist future as defijined by Marxist-Leninist ideology, the artists were primarily interested in a liberation from tradition and a carte blanche for creative freedom.79 The discrepancy was clearly expressed by Lenin himself in an interview with the German socialist Clara Zetkin. Lenin stated that he did not understand modern art and did not enjoy it. The socialist artist should make art for the working people, in a style accessible to all, that would inspire the realization of socialist society.80 That does not mean, however, that modern art was completely marginalized after the founding of the Soviet Union in 1922. Several art movements pleaded for a new connection between art and the working people without giving up the idea of artistic autonomy and quality. The group October (1928-32) with artists like El Lissitzky, Al- exander Rodchenko, Gustav Klutsis, Alexander Deineka and Hannes Meyer, the second director of the Bauhaus in Germany, envisioned a proletarian art that stood apart from 63 both nineteenth-century academic realism and from the inaccessible abstractions of the avant-garde.81 As mentioned earlier (chapter 2), this artistic vision appealed to Diego Rivera, who joined the group in 1928 during his visit to the Soviet Union, before his expulsion. Lenin died in January 1924, and it was only a few years later that his successor Stalin secured absolute power. Henceforth, all political and cultural organizations were strictly controlled. During the mid and late 1930s, Stalin launched a series of merciless campaigns and show tri- als against so-called opponents of the regime and the bourgeois-feudal class enemy, which was defijined in ever broader terms. During these campaigns, millions of people were executed or sent to the gulags, disciplinary concentra- tion camps, where many of them disappeared. In spite of the ideological diffferences, the 1930s Soviet art world strongly resembled that of the Third Reich with its Reichs Chamber of Culture (see chapter 3). All previously existing art movements were dissolved, including October in 1932. Visual artists had to join the artists’ union, an umbrella organization with regional sections. Membership was a strict requirement to work offfijicially as an artist. Artists who were not accepted by the union were not allowed to exhibit their work, rent a studio or even buy painting materials.82 Around the same time, Socialist Realism became the universal artistic norm. The concept was introduced in May 1932 in the literary magazine Literaturnaya Gazeta, and one year later it was offfijicially attributed to Stalin personally.83 What is Socialist Realism? From the theoretical publications in the course of the 1930s, two ideas stand out. In the fijirst place, socialist art had to be dialectic; it should not depict the world as it is, in all its contingency and imperfection, but as it would reveal itself in all its splendor when the socialist 64 utopia had been realized. Artists had to isolate and depict those elements of everyday reality that foreshadow this socialist future, and had to avoid all elements that belonged to the ‘old order,’ which had to be overcome. In the second place, the artist had to be an ‘engineer of the soul,’ as Stalin told a gathering of Soviet writers at the dacha of Maxim Gorki.84 He had to invest the reader, listener or viewer with the ideal values of socialist society, consequently contribut- ing to the creation of the New Socialist Man and Woman. What this meant for the visual arts in practical terms became clear all too soon. Artistic experiments were no longer accepted. For inspiration, artists had to look to the Wanderers (Peredvizhniki), a group of artists around Ilja Repin who, at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, had broken free from the tsarist art academy to work in close contact with Russian nature and the Russian people.85 * After a brief period of relative relaxation and artistic freedom during and shortly after the Second World War, a vicious publicity campaign introduced a new reign of terror in the Soviet art world. Andrei Zhdanov, Party Secretary of the city of Leningrad, member of the Central Commit- tee of the Communist Party, and since 1946 responsible for cultural afffairs, played a decisive role in this process. Between 1946 and 1948 he published a series of four decrees, attacking, among other things, a lack of ideology in Soviet literature, bourgeois decadent influences in Soviet theater, false originality in Soviet music and degenerate characters in Soviet fijilm. In his decrees he specifijically swept aside in- ternational celebrities like the poet Anna Akhmatova, fijilm 65 director Sergei Eisenstein and composers Sergei Prokofijiev and Dmitri Shostakovich to make his point.86 Although Zhdanov did not specifijically address the visual arts in his decrees, their impact was immediately felt. The tsarist art academy, closed down by Lunacharsky in 1918 in order to reform art education, was reinstalled. Paintings from the years 1947-53 typically avoid any social conflict. Lenin and Stalin fijigure prominently, sometimes with an almost religious aura. Artists could get in trouble for depicting a drinking pause during work, or for a slightly impressionist rendering of a sun-lit wall in the view of a hair-splitting critic.87 Until 1953, the year of Stalin’s death, Soviet art critics as- sociated modern art with bourgeois decadence, capitalism or even, following National Socialist rhetoric, degenera- tion.88 One of the most notorious black sheep in Soviet art criticism was Pablo Picasso, whose ‘formalism’ (empty play of artistic forms) was considered a typical expression of the decadence of late capitalism.89 But Picasso was a complex case. In 1937, after exhibiting his Guernica at the Paris World Fair, protesting the German bombings on the Basque city of the same name, Picasso had presented himself as a po- litically engaged artist.